Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 49 (JHR)

Wakil Yadav v. Union of India

2012-01-09

P.P.BHATT, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
ORDER I.A. NO. 2873 OF 2011 This interlocutory application has been filed for fixing an early date of hearing. 2. After hearing both the parties, this interlocutory application No. 2873 of 2011 is allowed .Both the parties are ready to argue the appeal on merit. L.P.A. No. 525 of 2010 3. Heard both the parties 4. It is unfortunate that this departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant which is apparent from the solitary charge leveled against the appellant . The appellant was a security guard in the Central Industrial Security Force and he was posted in Uraniam Corporation of India Ltd. At that time two girls entered into the premises and the appellant being a guard inquired by saying that “ A madam kahan chali” . On saying so, both the girls stopped. Thereafter, the appellant -guard found that they did not sign on the gate pass and therefore, he said that “ Tum log parhna likhna janti ho” and obtained the signature of both the girls. This is the total charge. 5. It is very difficult to understand why the departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant for asking the girls where they were going and finding that their signatures were not there on the gate pass, he asked them whether they are literate or not can be said to be the mis-conduct of a person who is guard deputed for this purpose. However, the learned Single Judge also observed that “ I find that even if it is accepted that the petitioner used the language alleged while talking to the daughters of the Dy.G.M., but the alleged language used were of not of that nature which could have resulted in such an action and punishment against the petitioner”. Therefore, learned Single Judge was of the view that no action should have been taken against the writ petitioner-appellant much less to the awarding of the punishment . However, while deciding the writ petition the order of punishment was set aside and the matter was sent back for re-consideration of the case of the writ petitioner-appellant , so far as the quantum of the punishment is concerned. We are of the considered opinion that there was no reason for the department for holding the inquiry against the appellant on such allegation, which constitutes no misconduct. 6. We are of the considered opinion that there was no reason for the department for holding the inquiry against the appellant on such allegation, which constitutes no misconduct. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant and both the girls were not examined and even complainant withdrew the complaint. 7. We are of the considered opinion that departmental proceeding itself is nothing but an abuse of the power and nothing more. This L.P.A. is therefore, allowed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) upon the respondents.